2005 (8) TMI 395 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Prayer to set aside multiple orders in Co. Petition No. 60 of 1994.
2. Validity of the impugned orders dated March 4, 2003, and March 6, 2003.
3. Challenge to the valuation order of the property.
4. Explanation for not challenging the order dated December 11, 2000.

Issue 1:
The appellant sought to set aside various orders in Co. Petition No. 60 of 1994, including those dated March 4, 2003, and March 6, 2003. However, the court held that only specific orders could be challenged within the prescribed period of limitation. The general prayer to set aside all previous orders was deemed impermissible, restricting the challenge to the two specified orders.

Issue 2:
Regarding the impugned orders, the court analyzed the circumstances leading to the sale of valuable immovable property by private contract. The court found that the offer made by the tenant, who was also a potential purchaser, was fair and permissible under the law. The court upheld the validity of the sale through a private contract, emphasizing the reasonableness of the price offered in relation to the property's valuation and the circumstances of the case.

Issue 3:
The appellant contested the valuation order of the property, arguing that the finality of the valuation was established only after the order dated March 4, 2003. However, the court noted that the valuation exercise was initiated in 1997, with a valuation report filed in a sealed cover valuing the property at Rs. 1,14,75,000. The appellant failed to act on this valuation or provide an alternative buyer, leading the court to dismiss the challenge to the valuation order as a delay tactic.

Issue 4:
The court addressed the appellant's explanation for not challenging the order dated December 11, 2000, which permitted the sale of the property. Despite the appellant's claim of filing a review application, it was noted that the application was submitted beyond the limitation period for appeal. The court questioned the appellant's inaction in challenging the order, highlighting inconsistencies in their approach and ultimately dismissing the appeal as a continuation of dilatory tactics. The appeal was dismissed with costs amounting to Rs. 25,000.